- Banned
- #401
No... you can sleep in... it's 9 all the wayteams said:
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
AFL accepts Nine's tv bid...
- Thread starter Fred Phillis
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Pie 4 Life
Hall of Famer
$780 Million I heard 50% over the original price. 
ChrisFooty
Premiership Player
Yeah channel seven and ten are the losers here they don't have that much money. Kerry stokes isn't THAT rich.
Sad for the game if channel ten are left out of AFL.
Does anyone here think channel nine will ever sell a game to channel 10. No chance in hell becuase nine will still be fuming over ten for jumping ship and alligning with seven.
Sad for the game if channel ten are left out of AFL.
Does anyone here think channel nine will ever sell a game to channel 10. No chance in hell becuase nine will still be fuming over ten for jumping ship and alligning with seven.
littleduck said:
Are you one who believes 7/10 will win the rights?
I mean all they have to do is up their offer by 10% basically, and it's theirs.
In a negotiation where you already know you have the right to bid last, I think most people/organisations would bid AT LEAST 10% less than what their limit is.
i.e. 7/10 will do it and win the rights.
Yes..The Dice Man said:
You would think so..I mean all they have to do is up their offer by 10% basically, and it's theirs.
In a negotiation where you already know you have the right to bid last, I think most people/organisations would bid AT LEAST 10% less than what their limit is.
i.e. 7/10 will do it and win the rights.
Don't know where this $40 million talk is coming from
Current 9/Fox bid - $700 million cash
Previous 7/10 bid - $616 million cash
7/10 need to find $84 million CASH (and $164 million total when factoring in contra)
Spot on the $165 million figure Gerry Whateley, Mike Sheahan and 9 News said that was needed to match it
Current 9/Fox bid - $700 million cash
Previous 7/10 bid - $616 million cash
7/10 need to find $84 million CASH (and $164 million total when factoring in contra)
Spot on the $165 million figure Gerry Whateley, Mike Sheahan and 9 News said that was needed to match it
The $40m figure is coming from the age article yesterday that said Seven-Ten's offer was $740m including contra.
Ok, to clarify the difference in coverage between the bids:
http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/payback-time-for-demetriou/2005/12/23/1135032185228.html
To me, that sounds like Prime TV and Southern Cross Ten (Seven and Ten regional affiliates) were going to broadcast in to the infamous "blackspots" from the last round. So Canberra, Wagga, the Gold Coast would have had free-to-air FNF, with "prime time" presumably being 8.30pm (that's when Canberra used to get FNF on Prime before Nine won the rights last time).
WIN TV (Nine affiliate) carries the league and wouldn't not have been able to match this.
Seven would have then broadcast into Sydney and Brisbane at the oft-stated 10.30 pm timeslot.
Nine in turn has countered with live or near live on Foxtel into the Northern Markets, and sounds like it has given some rubbery non-contractual assurance that they will continue to examine options with the recalcitrant SBS for Friday night broadcasting.
Now, aide from the Nine-ophiles living in lar-lar land, we all know that will never happen. Nine will never let AFL compete directly with their league broadcast if they control the rights to both. What will happen is that Nine will say to the SBS, "pay us $100m and we'll let you broadcast FNF". SBS will tell them to get stuffed, and then Nine will go back to the AFL and say "sorry, we were unable to reach an agreement with SBS, but it wasn't in our contract so see you in five years".
Now, in reality, the AFL knows all this. They have made the call that near-live on Foxtel is good enough and they've taken the money and run. Why is it good enough? Cause it passed the threshold test of allowing Demetrihoe to say the new agreement provides better coverage than the current agreement without lying ... and technically he'll be right, but only because the bar is so low in the Northern states from the last agreement, not because there will have been any material improvement in coverage for the 70% of people who don't have pay TV.
So essentially, the AFL have sold out the fans on coverage again, but hey, they did that last time and no lynch mob stormed AFL headquarters. They think the money is in the bank now so the worst that can happen is that Seven-Ten will trump Nine and they get the best of both worlds.
They're wrong.
http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/...lodges-780m-bid/2005/12/23/1135032185733.html
That hardly sounds like an insurmountable gap between the bids, particularily since Seven-Ten had no incentive to bid high the first time and Seven needs to bid again or else it will have paid $20m for a last right of refusal that it never excercised.
My guess is that Seven-Ten will drop their coverage back so it's no better than what Nine is offering - ie tell their regional affliates to screen a high rating movie instad, and let Foxtel broadcast live on Friday night ala the Nine bid. Why would they maintain their offer of superior coverage when the AFL is not rewarding them for offering it? They'll then use the savings from not going head to head with NRL, and whatever is left in their war chest from bidding low the first time, to increase the cash component of their bid to slighly exceed Nines.
The AFL, having again shown their true colours and said cash is more important than coverage, will reap what they've sown. They'll will end up with their non-preferred broadcaster and worse coverage than they could have had if they hadn't been a bunch of greedy vindictive pricks.
But they'll have the money, and that will fix all the poor clubs problems, just like it did last time round
The trash heap haaaaaaaaaaaaaassssss spoken!
Ok, to clarify the difference in coverage between the bids:
http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/payback-time-for-demetriou/2005/12/23/1135032185228.html
To me, that sounds like Prime TV and Southern Cross Ten (Seven and Ten regional affiliates) were going to broadcast in to the infamous "blackspots" from the last round. So Canberra, Wagga, the Gold Coast would have had free-to-air FNF, with "prime time" presumably being 8.30pm (that's when Canberra used to get FNF on Prime before Nine won the rights last time).
WIN TV (Nine affiliate) carries the league and wouldn't not have been able to match this.
Seven would have then broadcast into Sydney and Brisbane at the oft-stated 10.30 pm timeslot.
Nine in turn has countered with live or near live on Foxtel into the Northern Markets, and sounds like it has given some rubbery non-contractual assurance that they will continue to examine options with the recalcitrant SBS for Friday night broadcasting.
Now, aide from the Nine-ophiles living in lar-lar land, we all know that will never happen. Nine will never let AFL compete directly with their league broadcast if they control the rights to both. What will happen is that Nine will say to the SBS, "pay us $100m and we'll let you broadcast FNF". SBS will tell them to get stuffed, and then Nine will go back to the AFL and say "sorry, we were unable to reach an agreement with SBS, but it wasn't in our contract so see you in five years".
Now, in reality, the AFL knows all this. They have made the call that near-live on Foxtel is good enough and they've taken the money and run. Why is it good enough? Cause it passed the threshold test of allowing Demetrihoe to say the new agreement provides better coverage than the current agreement without lying ... and technically he'll be right, but only because the bar is so low in the Northern states from the last agreement, not because there will have been any material improvement in coverage for the 70% of people who don't have pay TV.
So essentially, the AFL have sold out the fans on coverage again, but hey, they did that last time and no lynch mob stormed AFL headquarters. They think the money is in the bank now so the worst that can happen is that Seven-Ten will trump Nine and they get the best of both worlds.
They're wrong.
http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/...lodges-780m-bid/2005/12/23/1135032185733.html
That hardly sounds like an insurmountable gap between the bids, particularily since Seven-Ten had no incentive to bid high the first time and Seven needs to bid again or else it will have paid $20m for a last right of refusal that it never excercised.
My guess is that Seven-Ten will drop their coverage back so it's no better than what Nine is offering - ie tell their regional affliates to screen a high rating movie instad, and let Foxtel broadcast live on Friday night ala the Nine bid. Why would they maintain their offer of superior coverage when the AFL is not rewarding them for offering it? They'll then use the savings from not going head to head with NRL, and whatever is left in their war chest from bidding low the first time, to increase the cash component of their bid to slighly exceed Nines.
The AFL, having again shown their true colours and said cash is more important than coverage, will reap what they've sown. They'll will end up with their non-preferred broadcaster and worse coverage than they could have had if they hadn't been a bunch of greedy vindictive pricks.
But they'll have the money, and that will fix all the poor clubs problems, just like it did last time round
The trash heap haaaaaaaaaaaaaassssss spoken!
- Banned
- #410
Tigger said:
Hello Spencer, how is "Ugle" going?
dirk pitt said:
Caroline Wilson's $740m figure have been exposed as rubbish weeks ago (as she includes 7/10's 'potential advertising dollars in NSW/QLD' in her figures which the AFL has already rejected as not real money)
The cash gap between the two bids is at the very minimum $75 million to as high as $100 million
- Banned
- #412
Tigger said:
A Collingwood supporter masquerading as a Tiger, how funny is that?
- Banned
- #414
Tigger said:
Dont be like that Wiggins, all because you have been exposed!
dirk pitt said:The $40m figure is coming from the age article yesterday that said Seven-Ten's offer was $740m including contra.
Ok, to clarify the difference in coverage between the bids:
http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/payback-time-for-demetriou/2005/12/23/1135032185228.html
To me, that sounds like Prime TV and Southern Cross Ten (Seven and Ten regional affiliates) were going to broadcast in to the infamous "blackspots" from the last round. So Canberra, Wagga, the Gold Coast would have had free-to-air FNF, with "prime time" presumably being 8.30pm (that's when Canberra used to get FNF on Prime before Nine won the rights last time).
WIN TV (Nine affiliate) carries the league and wouldn't not have been able to match this.
Seven would have then broadcast into Sydney and Brisbane at the oft-stated 10.30 pm timeslot.
Nine in turn has countered with live or near live on Foxtel into the Northern Markets, and sounds like it has given some rubbery non-contractual assurance that they will continue to examine options with the recalcitrant SBS for Friday night broadcasting.
Now, aide from the Nine-ophiles living in lar-lar land, we all know that will never happen. Nine will never let AFL compete directly with their league broadcast if they control the rights to both. What will happen is that Nine will say to the SBS, "pay us $100m and we'll let you broadcast FNF". SBS will tell them to get stuffed, and then Nine will go back to the AFL and say "sorry, we were unable to reach an agreement with SBS, but it wasn't in our contract so see you in five years".
Now, in reality, the AFL knows all this. They have made the call that near-live on Foxtel is good enough and they've taken the money and run. Why is it good enough? Cause it passed the threshold test of allowing Demetrihoe to say the new agreement provides better coverage than the current agreement without lying ... and technically he'll be right, but only because the bar is so low in the Northern states from the last agreement, not because there will have been any material improvement in coverage for the 70% of people who don't have pay TV.
So essentially, the AFL have sold out the fans on coverage again, but hey, they did that last time and no lynch mob stormed AFL headquarters. They think the money is in the bank now so the worst that can happen is that Seven-Ten will trump Nine and they get the best of both worlds.
They're wrong.
http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/...lodges-780m-bid/2005/12/23/1135032185733.html
That hardly sounds like an insurmountable gap between the bids, particularily since Seven-Ten had no incentive to bid high the first time and Seven needs to bid again or else it will have paid $20m for a last right of refusal that it never excercised.
My guess is that Seven-Ten will drop their coverage back so it's no better than what Nine is offering - ie tell their regional affliates to screen a high rating movie instad, and let Foxtel broadcast live on Friday night ala the Nine bid. Why would they maintain their offer of superior coverage when the AFL is not rewarding them for offering it? They'll then use the savings from not going head to head with NRL, and whatever is left in their war chest from bidding low the first time, to increase the cash component of their bid to slighly exceed Nines.
The AFL, having again shown their true colours and said cash is more important than coverage, will reap what they've sown. They'll will end up with their non-preferred broadcaster and worse coverage than they could have had if they hadn't been a bunch of greedy vindictive pricks.
But they'll have the money, and that will fix all the poor clubs problems, just like it did last time round
The trash heap haaaaaaaaaaaaaassssss spoken!
Sounds about right to me.
The AFL and the clubs are just greedy money grabbing fools who do not deserve to be in charge of such a successful product.
At this stage I am resigned to Aussie Rules being watered down and sold back to us sans soul!!!
What I am really hoping though is that Kerry stokes gets control back, just so those pricks at channel 9 and News corp and fat eddie and his band of collingwood fools can suck ********.
If that doesn't happen then I will slowly dissconect from my one vice, which has slowly but surely become more and more toxic and less and less pleasurable as the years have gone by.
The funny thing is that the kids today do not even know what they could of had - for free !!!
Oh well what do you expect from a world that excepts global pollution and makes the inhabitants of the lucky country pay top dollar for it's second best produce while selling the lions share to overseas markets for less?
Austrlians are the dumest most spoilt sh*ts in the whole world.
You deserve to get what you are about to recieve.
They have already sold you drinking water, now they are selling you the footy you already had for free, next they will be selling you "breathing air"
Hahahahahaha ....!!!!
Enjoy it.
- Banned
- #417
Tigger said:
Come on Spencer Wiggins. DOnt be like that. All because you are banned at EBW.
Say hello to Ugle for us as well!
- Banned
- #419
Tigger said:Yeah, whatever
Don't have a ********in clue what you are talking about
Now run along child
Come on Wiggins. You said this about Colin Wisbey
Tigger said:
Why would you know about ANYTHING that the mods do at Extreme Balck & White, if you are truly a Richmond fan?
Only one person has ever said what you have said about Wisbey.
Couple this with the fact that you have not even made ONE POST on the Richmond board!
You walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and you sure aint venison.
Sprung badly.
I was talking about the Wisbette lemming moderators on BigFooty that were deleting each and every Wisbey thread questioning him and his credibility and track record of failure on the Drafting forum
There are stacks of people (me included) who reckon Wisbey's profiles are just rubbish and there is a handful of BF posters who take his 5000 words of trash as pure gospel. But you can't have that opinion on the BF Drafting board! Whoever this Wiggins bloke is, I congratulate him for not falling under the Cult of Wisbey
BF's Richmond board is rubbish. If I want to talk Tigers, PRE is the place
Now ******** off and stop stalking me loser
- Banned
- #423
Tigger said:
I was talking about the Wisbette lemming moderators on BigFooty that were deleting each and every Wisbey thread questioning him and his credibility and track record of failure on the Drafting forum
There are stacks of people (me included) who reckon Wisbey's profiles are just rubbish and there is a handful of BF posters who take his 5000 words of trash as pure gospel. But you can't have that opinion on the BF Drafting board! Whoever this Wiggins bloke is, I congratulate him for not falling under the Cult of Wisbey
BF's Richmond board is rubbish. If I want to talk Tigers, PRE is the place
Now ******** off and stop stalking me loser
How would you know what the mods are doing ona COllingwood only board if you truly follow Richmond?
You would have no idea at all unless you frequented the place and you do of course as a Collingwood supporter.
Come on Wiggins. The jig is up.
ChrisFooty
Premiership Player
nine would never sell a game to channel 10......they are all going to the mighty foxtel.
nine are also home......seven and ten couldn't even pay 140 mil a year, let alone 165 mil a year odd.
nine are also home......seven and ten couldn't even pay 140 mil a year, let alone 165 mil a year odd.
